Re: test10-pre7

[Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>]

Keith Owens writes:
> kbuild 2.5 splits link order into three categories.  Those that must
> come first, in the order they are specified - LINK_FIRST.  Those that
> must come last, in the order they are specified - LINK_LAST.

Keith, this sounds like a K-ludge.

Take the instance where we need to link a.o first, z.o second, f.o third
and p.o fourth.  How does LINK_FIRST / LINK_LAST guarantee this?

LINK_FIRST = a.o z.o
LINK_LAST = f.o p.o

But then what guarantees that 'a.o' will be linked before 'z.o'?

A first/last implementation can *not* specify precisely a link order without
guaranteeing that the order of the LINK_FIRST *and* the LINK_LAST objects
is preserved, which incidentally is the same requirement for the obj-y
implementation.

I don't see what this LINK_FIRST / LINK_LAST gains us other than more
complexity for zero gain.
   _____
  |_____| ------------------------------------------------- ---+---+-
  |   |         Russell King        rmk@arm.linux.org.uk      --- ---
  | | | |   http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/~rmk/aboutme.html    /  /  |
  | +-+-+                                                     --- -+-
  /   |               THE developer of ARM Linux              |+| /|\
 /  | | |                                                     ---  |
    +-+-+ -------------------------------------------------  /\\\  |
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/